Why The Right to Bear Arms Should Not Be Infringed

Battle flag crafted by the defenders of Gonzalez, Texas during the Texas Revolution.

For the entirety of the history of the United States, gun rights have been a significant issue. Even before the nation was born, the threat of the government seizure of arms from the American colonists led to the shot heard around the world, Battle of Lexington and Concord, the revolutionary war, and the Declaration of Independence. Early in the Texas Revolution, the humble residents of Gonzalez defended their town’s cannon from the forces of the dictatorial Santa Anna, contributing to the start of another political uprising that would give power back to the people. Unfortunately, these noble acts of defying tyranny with the force of a well armed populous have been all but forgotten in contemporary discussion about gun control. Instead, tragic instances of shootings from Orlando to Sandy Hook have filled the American people with urgent concern about the legality of firearms. In this blog, I will outline the reasons why conservatives believe that the right to bear arms should not be infringed by examining the Constitution, the beliefs of the founding fathers, and the overarching morality of gun ownership.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. (off by a few details).

One argument for the right to bear arms comes from the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment specifically. As shown above, the exact wording is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” From a cursory reading of this language, two main conclusions have been drawn. First, a conclusion drawn by those on the left side of the aisle is that the rights of a well-regulated militia to bear arms, i.e. an army, shall not be infringed. This interpretation allows for the liberal use of regulations on types of guns to be owned and implementation of extra processes that must be completed to own firearms. A conservative reading of the Second Amendment, however, emphasizes the idea of the right of the people, i.e. every American citizen abiding by the law, to keep and bear arms. Logically following from this approach is support of policies protecting citizens from restrictions on types of guns allowed to be owned and from odious processes that must be completed to legally own guns. Additionally, different methods of gun ownership including concealed and open carry are fully permitted by this position on the absoluteness of the right to bear arms.

Painting of the founding fathers at the Constitutional Convention.

As seen above, the Second Amendment seems slightly ambiguous in the modern day, so an examination of what the founders intended the Amendment to mean at the time would be more productive. Here are some quotes by men who wrote and signed the Constitution regarding the use and ownership of firearms:

 “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

– George Mason,   Speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

– Samuel Adams

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … “

– Thomas Jefferson

These statements and many others indicate that the authors of the Constitution believed that the right to bear arms was an individual and inalienable right, necessary to protect society from tyrannical governments. Additionally, an argument made for personal gun rights is that the allowance for a government militia or army is present in Article 1, Section 8 of the original Constitution, and the Second Amendment specifically added the rights of the people to bear arms after referencing the militia clause. The entire Bill of Rights was, as indicated by its name, added for the safeguarding of the rights of American citizens and states, and almost all the evidence points towards the Second Amendment acknowledging an individual right to bear arms.

The Statue of Liberty.

A final and most fundamental reason that conservatives support the right to bear arms is a belief in the human good of liberty. As humans, we have the ability to reason, choose actions, and pursue what we think is best. Any action taken by a human that does not infringe upon the liberty of others is considered by myself and many right-wing philosophers as an action that is by default morally permissible. It is only when an action violates the agency and freedom of another human being that it becomes immoral. Applying this to the gun debate, the act of owning a gun is by default a moral act. However, if the government uses its monopoly of force to restrict the freedom to commit that moral act, no matter the intent, that legislation is immoral. Only when the person wielding the weapon uses the gun to intimidate, threaten, or actually harm an individual does the ownership become immoral and the government action to acquire the gun justified. Additionally, the idea of infinite human dignity and right to self-preservation supports the right of all to bear arms in order to counter violations of their own liberty by others. The founding fathers of the United States of America clearly understood these moral precepts and codified them in the Constitution, and conservatives agree with their interpretation and stance. Hopefully, more people will discuss the root moralities of issues today instead of arguing about minutiae endlessly and never solving problems.